1532: Plain text e-mails should use standard quoting techniques

emil****@gmai***** (Google Code) (Is this you? Claim this profile.)
June 10, 2010 
board.org/


What version are you running?

1.5b1

Describe the enhancement and the motivation for it.

RB now sends multipart/alternative e-mails with some nice HTML views.  
However, there are those who still use text-based e-mail readers.  It would 
be nice if the text/plain versions of reviews continued to use the standard 
quoting style (via nested "> " per level of quoting) that the old version 
of RB used.  This would make the text/plain much more readable.
chipx86
#1 chipx86 
Oh, they don't? Definitely a regression. I thought that worked when I moved over to
HTML e-mails.
  • -Priority-Medium
    +Priority-High
    +Component-EMail
    +Milestone-Release1.5
chipx86
#2 chipx86 
I cannot reproduce this, and nothing at all has changed in the quoting code or the
templates for the text-only e-mails in 1.5. I'd like to know what you're seeing.

What e-mail client are you using?

Are these on review e-mails, or replies to reviews?

What are you seeing instead of the ">" ?
  • +NeedInfo
  • -Priority-High
    +Priority-Medium
#3 emil****@gmai***** (Google Code) (Is this you? Claim this profile.) 
These are multipart/alternative messages.
Using mutt.
Replies to reviews.
There are simply no >s at all or indentation.

Now I am wondering if this is operator error because in addition to your comments, the internal archives on 
mailman look okay.  It is hard to immediately verify visually because the mails are base64 encoded... however, 
even if I use mutt with no user config files (mutt -n -F /dev/null), they still display broken.

Will send you a sample message OOB.
david
#4 david 
If the mailmain archives have the correct quoting, then the emails that RB is sending are correct. Something else in your environment is breaking it.
  • -NeedInfo
    +ThirdParty